North Indian Inscriptions

MISCELLANEOUS INSCRIPTIONS

TAHANKAPAR PLATE OF PAMPARAJADEVA : YEAR 965

The inscription is one of Pamparāja of Sōma-vaṁśa. It is a business docu- ment, executed at the (royal) residence in Kākaira, in favour of one Lakshmīdhara.¹ The object of it is to fix the revenue of the village Jaiparā² at 130 Sarāhagaḍāma-āchhus.³ as previously settled and Vijayarāja-ṭaṅkas.⁴ It is also stated that the revenue of another village named Chikhalī was fixed at 150 Vijayarāja-ṭaṅkas. Several persons, whom we know from the next inscription to be royal officials, are cited as witnesses to the transaction.

No genealogy of the king is given is given in the present inscription probably because it is a business document and not a royal grant. It is, however, curious that Pamparāja is given here the high-sounding titles Rājādhirāja and Paramēśvara together with some more modest ones, viⱬ., one who has acquired the pañcha-śabdas and Mahāmāṇḍalika. The latter probably describe his real status. From the Rājim inscription dated K.896, we learn that Jagapāla, who was a feudatory of Pṛithvīdēva II the Kalachuri king of Ratanpur, had conquered the Kākaira country and since that time rulers of that territory may have acknowledge the suzerainty of the Kalachuri kings of Ratanpur. Pamparāja, notwithstanding his high-sounding titles, was therefore, probably a feudatory of the Kalachuris whose era we find him using in this as well as in the following inscription. The present record mentions his queen Lakshmīdēvī, the prince Bōpadēva and the chief minister Dōgarā.

The inscription is dated on Monday, the 10th tithi⁵ of the dark fortnight of Bhādrapada in the year 965 (expressed in decimal figures only), the nakshatra being Mṛiga. The date must evidently be referred to the Kalachuri era. It corresponds, for the current year 965, to Monday, the 12th August 1213 A. C. On that day the 10th tithi of the dark fortnight of the pūrṇmānta Bhādrapada commenced 6 h. 45 m. after mean sunrise, and the nakshatra was Mṛiga which ended 14 h.30 m. after mean sunrise. Though the tithi was not civilly connected with Monday, it was so cited probably because it was actually current when the transaction was made. The charter was written by the Paṇḍita Vishṇuśarman and incised by the Sēṭhi Kēśava at the town of Pāḍi.

As for the places mentioned in the present record, Kākaira is Kāṅkēr mentioned above. Jaiparā and Chikhalī have already been identified by Rai Bahadur Hiralal with Jaiprā and Chikhlī, 15 and 21 miles respectively north of Kāṅkēr. Pāḍī, which he was unable to trace, is clearly Pāḍē, 18 miles west by south of Kāṅkēr.
___________________

¹ He is probably identical with Lakshmīdharaśarman, the grantee of the other Tahankāpār plate (below, No. 117) and different from Lakshmīdhara cited as a witness in 1. 8 of the present plate.
² In the text Jaiparā has Vaṇikōṭṭa affixed to it. Hiralal took it to mean that in Jaiparā there was a vaṇīkkōṭṭa or “traders' fortress”, i.e., a fortified place probably made by Banjāras for storing grain purchased for transport. See Ep. Ind., Vol. IX, p. I69, n. 1.
³ Sarāhagaḍa is probably identical with Saraharāgaḍha mentioned in 1.10 of the Rājim stone inscription of Jagapāla (above, No.88). Āchhu is probably identical with āsū, a coin mentioned in the literature of the Mahānubhāvas as current during the time of Chakradhara, the founder of that sect (13th cen. A.C.) Sarāhgaḍām-āchhu may, therefore, mean the particular coin of Sarāhagaḍ (modern Sāraṅgarh, formerly a feudatory State in Chhattisgarh).
⁴ Hiralal proposed to emend Vijayarāja into vijaya-rājya and understood the expression as ‘coins of our victorious reign (mint)'. It is not unlikely that Vijayarāja was a king who struck those coins. Compare Śrimād-Ādivarāha-dramma and Vigrahapāla-dramma in 11.19 and 30 of the Sīyaḍōṇī in- scription. Ep. Ind., Vol. 1. pp. 175 and 177.
⁵ As kielhorn has already noted, the cipher is engraved quite on the margin of the plate. As regards the name of the week-day ‘the engraver after the akshara sō in the first instance by mistake engraved the letter d ( of dinē), and he then altered this d to ma.’ Ep. Ind., Vol IX, p. 131.